Hold on, PCR is used to amplify target strands of DNA to detectable levels. Even the most infected, dense viral load would need PCR to get an accurate reading. It’s more of a qualitative positive/negative test, which it is very good at.
It’s one of the standards for molecular biology, so I doubt it was a malicious, deliberate choice. The people tested still had the virus and are technically “positive” in every sense of the word, and saying that they should be classified as negative when they have any measure of viral load would be dishonest as well as completely go against precedent for literally every other disease metric, invalidating any conclusions to be drawn.
The science supports the right, not the left. But if these are our talking points, it’s a good way to erode our own positions and make us look like fucking idiots.
If the title was “90% of those that tested positive had non-transmittable, asymptomatic viral loads” then we could move forward.
Yes, of course PCR lets you create millions of samples of a small segment of DNA. It's very first use, as far as I know, was for HIV testing. But the issue is WHO and CDC WERE using it precisely for +/- testing, Did you miss that? I believe it was phased out for other tests, but that is exactly what was happening. Nobody discussed viral load--it was do you have this sequence? The other issue was that there is judgment involved in how many replications. This was especially true for testing drugs for HIV and reduction of viral load. Very easy to manipulate results.
So yeah, catch up so we can move forward.
Hold on, PCR is used to amplify target strands of DNA to detectable levels. Even the most infected, dense viral load would need PCR to get an accurate reading. It’s more of a qualitative positive/negative test, which it is very good at.
It’s one of the standards for molecular biology, so I doubt it was a malicious, deliberate choice. The people tested still had the virus and are technically “positive” in every sense of the word, and saying that they should be classified as negative when they have any measure of viral load would be dishonest as well as completely go against precedent for literally every other disease metric, invalidating any conclusions to be drawn.
The science supports the right, not the left. But if these are our talking points, it’s a good way to erode our own positions and make us look like fucking idiots.
If the title was “90% of those that tested positive had non-transmittable, asymptomatic viral loads” then we could move forward.
Yes, of course PCR lets you create millions of samples of a small segment of DNA. It's very first use, as far as I know, was for HIV testing. But the issue is WHO and CDC WERE using it precisely for +/- testing, Did you miss that? I believe it was phased out for other tests, but that is exactly what was happening. Nobody discussed viral load--it was do you have this sequence? The other issue was that there is judgment involved in how many replications. This was especially true for testing drugs for HIV and reduction of viral load. Very easy to manipulate results. So yeah, catch up so we can move forward.
“90% of people who tested positive should have been classified as negative”
They did not test negative, you understand that right?